What is 'logical' or 'reasonable' in a process that relies on odds greater than those of a lottery to function?

If you were to calculate the odds that you and I would be on the computer at the exact same time, given our presumably different backgrounds, circumstances, etc., you would find that it was essentially impossible for us to ask and/or answer this question at this point in time. It simply could not happen, given the astronomical odds against it. And yet, here we are....

Here's the trouble with your thinking:

1. First, do you have any facts to back up your claim about the "odds"?

2. The odds may be incredibly remote that a specific person will win the lottery, but *somebody* wins it almost every week. Evolution (to which I assume you're referring; correct me if I'm wrong) is not a goal-oriented process -- it doesn't have one specific end result in mind. Neither did the Big Bang, or the natural processes that formed this planet and gave rise to life on it.

Roll one thousand dice. The odds of the particular combination that you roll coming up are astronomically low, but the odds that you'll get *a* result are pretty much guaranteed.

The chance of something happening AFTER it has already happened is 100%. Even if the percentage were astronomically low, the fact that it has happened doesn't automatically mean that there was a deity guiding the process along.

By the way, evolution and such aren't "random" processes.

"the odds required for a random process to create our particular existence."

You are correct. Luckily of course, basic chemistry is not random and that is how we got here.

Yes, but the random process would only have to have happened once, and our universe has existed quite long enough for it to have occurred.

the old "it's against the odds" argument is worn out and dead. Watch some thunderfoot to find out why.

"Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences" by John Allen Paulos

Hope that helps

Argument from incredulity fail.